Before ecotourism activities, the number of household members was 4.79 on average; it was found to be 4.80 after ecotourism. The H0 hypothesis was accepted (Table 15.1) for the significance test of the difference between two variables to see whether ecotourism had an impact on the change in household size. The result was 95 % reliability, which means that there was no statistically significant difference (t calculation = —299, p > 0.05).
|
Table 15.1 t test results applied to determine the difference in size of household between pre-ecotourism and post-ecotourism periods
Source: Aydin (2010) |
15.3.1.2 Vocational and Educational Status
As a result of the conducted survey, a chi-square compliance test conducted to see whether villagers were distributed evenly among vocational groups (Table 15.2); accordingly, the H0 hypothesis was rejected with 95 % statistical reliance and it was determined that the answers revealed a significant difference among vocational groups (chi-square calculation = 41,787, p < 0.05): 42.6 % were farmers, 11.5 were public servants and housewives, 4.9 % were workers and self-employed, 9.8 % were retired and shopkeepers, and 6.6 % were students.
In addition, the chi-square compliance test was conducted to see whether countrymen were distributed evenly among educational status groups (Table 15.3). The H0 hypothesis was rejected with 95 % statistical reliance, and it was determined that educational status distributions were not even (chi-square calculation = 41,787, p < 0.05); it was found that 3.3 % were illiterate, 3.3 % were just literate, 34.4 % were elementary school graduates, 21.3 % were secondary school graduates, 26.2 % were high school graduates, 3.3 % held 2-year college degrees, and 8.2 % held graduate degrees.
According to these results, it is understood that frequencies related to educational status were not distributed evenly among all classes.
